mercredi 12 décembre 2012

Austria used to be Holy Roman Empire

That is, Archduchy of Austria - meaning the Bundeslaender Wien, Niederoesterreich and Oberoesterrich or in English Vienna, Nether and Upper Austria, used to be the residence and hereditary demesne of the family from whom came most of the Holy Roman Emperors or Holy Roman Emperors Elect in Modern Times up to 1806. Same family continued to rule Austrian Empire up to 1848 (I think) and then Austrian Empire and Hungarian Kingdom up to less than one hundred years ago. Most of my life one Cardinal Stickler was alive, who was born their subject.

However, though it included Catholic subjects, Eastern Orthodox subjects, Protestant subjects (notably Calvinists in Hungary) and Jewish subjects, maybe here and there (like in Bosnia if you count it as being really subject) Muslim subjects as well, it was a Catholic state. Not Protestant, not Eastern Orthodox, not Jewish, not Muslim. And, above all, not confession-less, not run by interconfessionality or non-confessionality.

I think the Holy Land could be run by intercofessionality - between Christian Palestinians/Israeli Arabs, Jews, Muslim Palestinians/Israeli Arabs, if each community had its own authority, if disputes involving two of the communities were settled by the third, if disputes were either all three were involved or one of the disputing communities distrusted the third community were left to an international authority. But I see no hope of this getting done correctly without that one being either Austria or France. Even England which was not Catholic, when Clémenceau had sold or given France's authority to England in his spree of laicisation (which included a killing spree on Catholics defending their churches in 1905-1906), bungled it.

When Chesterton wrote "The New Jerusalem" he saw the early stages of this bungling. He of course enjoyed the fact that English when taking over after a purely nominal power of France (which could not wield a power that was blocked by Turkey) could use the real colonial type power for the good by building water pipelines. But later England bungled it by collaborating with Zionism, and Chesterton saw streets full with the Christians and Muslims whose placards and banners said "Christians and Moslems are brothers". Was the occasion a directly Pro-Zionist decision? No, as I recall it it was the naming of Sir Herbert Samuel to rule the mandate. Here is the passage about him:

We in England may consider all sorts of aspects of a man like Sir Herbert Samuel; we may consider him as a Liberal, or a friend of the Fabian Socialists, or a cadet of one of the great financial houses, or a Member of Parliament who is supposed to represent certain miners in Yorkshire, or in twenty other more or less impersonal ways. But the people in Palestine will see only one aspect, and it will be a very personal aspect indeed. For the enthusiastic Moslems he will simply be a Jew; for the enthusiastic Zionists he will not really be a Zionist. For them he will always be the type of Jew who would be willing to remain in London, and who is ready to represent Westminster. Meanwhile, for the masses of Moslems and Christians, he will only be the aggravation in practice of the very thing of which he is the denial in theory. He will not mean that Palestine is not surrendered to the Jews, but only that England is.

That sort of bungling is to be feared if the "international authority" called for by the Pope is to have a Western stamp. Because the West has been bungling since it gave up being Catholic.

If it is however to include non-Westerners on an equal footing, or for that matter even pretend to do so (for this project is a Western project) there are other problems to be feared. Instead of Sir Herbert Samuel or people like him gaining a position in Palestine it means they loose their life in London. Not consistently, not in every case, that would be too obvious an intrusion of Easterners into Western affairs, but in some cases.

What happens to one "Herbert Samuel" if he is a Christian?

I think some people who have seen me on the street and know I am a writer on the internet have read my writings, found them not to their taste, and arranged for me to stay poor, to stay "walking through the desert", in a hope of my later changing views and then serve as a Magical Negro" figure for those new views.

But I was writing before I became homeless, and neither homelessness nor, occasionally, pains of infections and inflammations change my views.

On my list for what Benedict XVI must grant if not as dogma then at least as liberties for Catholics not agreeing with his views before I can be sure he can even possible have a chance of being Pope rather than heresiarch was already:

  • Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism;
  • Recognition that though sodomy can never be a marital act and therefore same sex partnerships can never be marriages, nevertheless no person is by the fact of so called "homosexual inclination" excluded either morally or canonically from the two sexed couples called marriages.* And other disagreements with modern psychology or psychiatry;
  • That forcing someone into psychiatry or someone's children into custody or care changes imposed by Child Protective Services, as well as abortion are not on the list of errors about legitimate defense involving death of agressor issued by one of the Popes - Alexander VIII or possibly VII as I seem to recall - who have already answered questions about Legitimate Defense, that is that the agressed party (or if it be a child an adult protecting it) has the right to use force, even lethally, to avoid such an issue;
  • That keeping children in other kinds of schooling than those chosen by parents (including their right to homeschool or to make an apprenticeship with quite non-scholarly subjects) and to force adolescents already maritable according to the Canon Law that was the longest in use (end of fourteenth life year for contracting husband and of twelfth for contracting wife) is an abuse against their human rights;

    I seem to have to add:

  • That an "international authority" must either be Catholic or not be and that its not being is quite compatible with Justice. Or at leat less incompatible than its being in the wrong way.**

How so? Monday December 3d, Benedict XVI held a speech calling for:

the “construction of a world community, with a corresponding authority,” to serve the “common good of the human family”.

I am not quoting the speech itself, only this referate:

The Paradise Post : With ‘friends’ like this who needs enemies: Vatican calls for New World Order

Be it noted that I am not guilty of this project. I have used comparisons between the Traditions to elucidate that the Natural Law of Human Morality is far closer to Catholicism than to Western Secularism, indeed cannot be divorced from Catholicism. I have however not at all been proposing that all the Traditions get together ecumenically to construct a Natural Law from the diverse Traditions.

I have stated that a state such as Tenochtitlan or Carthage or Jericho was such a bad state that an intervention from without not worsening but very much bettering condistions was totally in order. But I have not asked that the Joshuas or Scipios or Cortez should depend on some United Nations decision.

Sometimes a corrupt society is saved from within, either by Civil War, as when Franco saved Spain from Azaña, or by peaceful reform. Each state enjoying the presence of Catholic faithful would be far better employed to better itself and become as Catholic as possible than by serving an "international community".

In the first years after 1990 one French right wing paper stated that "Adam was before the fall deservedly King of all Mankind, but he lost this Universal Kingship by the Fall. After the Fall only two men can be Universal Kings: Christ and Antichrist."

That is what I have believed since then also. If Benedict XVI considers that a heresy, I do not consider him a Pope.

If Benedict XVI is calling for a Republic rather than a Kingship, I think he is muddle headed as to how ambition and tyranny are really to be excluded. In Francos Spain and in most or all states of US of A a man in the 1940's could be locked up in pyschiatry on very dubious grounds. The grounds now used are not necessarily christal clear, I have recently looked at the diagnose of "borderline", which looks like a recepy for persecuting people. But in Franco's Spain, which was a dictatorship, the man could not be sterilized against his will and in some states which were Republics a man could be sterilized against his will. In Sweden also that happened. Because of the Bernadottes? No, because of Social Democratic Prime Ministers, usually elected party leaders of Socialdemocratic Labourers' Party (SAP: Arbetare = Labourer) before that party was elected sole or coalition majority party of the Parliament. In Sweden this evil started one year before Hitler imitated it (Sweden 1935, Germany 1936) and continued into the epoch of Olof Palme, into my lifetime. One of my great aunts was sterilized for being too fertile after having five children. Besides, a Republic as much as a Kingship neads a Monarch of some kind. It is not sure that a President would not have qualified as a Melek in Old Hebrew Semantics. Of course, he could be considered Suffet. Or rather not, since Suffets were two men like the Roman Consuls. If two men rule, having mutual veto, and rule over the world, I suppose the more Roman and Christian of them will be the obstacle to Antichrist and will be dealt with accordingly. I was going to add "sooner or later", but then I am not at all sure whether there is all that much time left.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
St Alexander of Alexandria,
St Synesius

PS: I am not and have not been condemning but rather asking for a restitution of the Holy Roman Empire, irrespectively of frontier questions, as such, with the institutions and laws and customs it had. I am in that context saddened that John XXIII took away from the Pontificale the rites for coronation of a Roman Emperor. The Habsburgs had no direct political power over any part of China, and their laws included no compromise with Chinese errors. When I have asked - in a letter to John Paul II and to the Patriarch of Constantinople - for the Restitution of the Roman Empire, that is what I meant: restoring the good laws, tearing down the new tyrannies and some licences which are for one thing tyrannous against the better part of man and for another easily aggravating of informal tyrannies and easily multiplied by them. Including notably abortion and sodomy.

The Chesterton quote above was from chapter VII of:




*Edit/Footnote: If you think you read any approval of same sex unions in above sentence, read again. I totally agree with Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, that not only are such unions not able to be marriages, they are able to be forbidden and punished by secular authority, as is sodomy and as is also contraception in itself. I approve of those "homosexuals" who will not let their homosexuality decide their sexual activities, whether it be the real Christian marriage or celibacy that they prefer to living aberrant tendencies to their conclusion. And I approve of them not because of their homosexuality, but because of such a decision./HGL

**Edit/Footnote: People like this (at first not quite as rough) could get top heavy through internationalised elite (even Perú has been ruled by one horrid Fujimoro) :

[Geoffrey Clark] described the rise in population in Britain as “desperately bad, pitiable, scary, and a cause for bowing of heads in national shame.” Citing the 18th century father of eugenics Thomas Malthus, Clark wrote, “Population growth and declining quality of life go hand in hand.” He said that the UK should “attack mercilessly” those developing countries with high rates of population growth like Kenya, Nigeria, and Mexico.

source : LifeSiteNews
British politician: ‘consider compulsory abortion’ for Downs babies

And would we want China and India to have real - if only shared - sovereignty over Ireland and Malta? I would not!/HGL

1 commentaire:

  1. Of course, Austria might have an obligation to withdraw a legislation from Joseph II / Maria Theresa exposing Gipsies to an early equivalent of Child Protective Services.

    I mean, the Empire had a certain taint from start, and from time to time it resurfaced. Joseph II was, apart from introducing the Heurigen, a reminder of Nero, Marcus Aurelius, Diocletian and Julian Apostate. Not quiet as bad as Frederick II the Stauffer, but still.

    Still, the Empire is possibly or even probably what St Paul meant as holding back the man of sin (Thessalonians, I think the second epistle).